@Ochod
Well, I read Sucharit’s comment, and I would have hated to disappoint him; hence the silence. ;) :D

This “we are so backward” tone is annoying and fails to see that the fundamentalism in India is a modern development.

It is *not* true that we in India are yet to gain from the West concepts of critical thinking or dissent which they have had since the Enlightenment. On the contrary, all through Europe’s darkest ages, we have had a rich tradition of disagreement and fierce debate on almost everything. The Indian tradition very much “tolerates” (actually, encourages) debate, it only insists that one learn the other side properly, and that the criticism not be mere abuse. (On the specific topic of the actions of Rama or other mythological characters, we have a significant body of arguments and counterarguments — at least in Sanskrit and Kannada, and quite probably in every major literary language of India. Some of the recent ones have even been given the country’s highest literary honour. :P) The kind of fundamentalism in question here is very much a 20th-century construction, or at any rate does not predate colonialism.

Also, you have the luxury of dismissing from the other side these people as “religious nutjobs”, but in the US they are significant leaders with large followings: and, like all leaders, they’re mostly saying what their audience has come to expect and desire. The situation is far from harmless; factors other than legal can be just as powerful.

Although I doubt the assertion that the creator of the cartoon “would very likely be behind bars by now” (after all, it’s just as available over the net in India too and no one’s made any fuss), I must point out that the idea of unrestricted free speech itself, while it seems like a great thing to all of us, is worth examining. As Stephen Fry and Clive James mention, the American idea of putting freedom over justice seems somewhat preposterous… as does their constitutional fundamentalism, where their constitution (like their Bible) is supposed to trump over empiricism, trying to reason about the consequences of laws in a given context. Freedom of *political* expression — or dissent against the state — is clearly something to be protected, but in India, where “mere words” and rumours can have immense effect, it is not clear that it would be wise to unfetter ‘hate speech’ and the like right now. Even the US wild West model, where speech is free and everyone’s allowed to attack unreasonably (and capricious Facebook posts about “death panels” can derail the entire national conversation), “because you can also attack in return”, seems to lead to a society of perpetual pugnaciousness, and does not seem to me any more enlightened than their ideas about guns.